I am a flay judge who votes truth>tech. I can handle speed but I don't care for spreading. I am not a fan of theory and am very unlikely to give you the ballot if you employ that tactic. If you link to nuclear winter, you better convince me that if I don't live in your world, I am actually going to die. I am a parent of a speech and debate kid so I understand how this works but I am more likely to be persuaded by the ideas and impacts you present rather than the technicalities and jargon. Convince me your world is better.

Background Info

I have judged for high school debate tournaments for 10 years, and genuinely enjoy doing so. LD is by far my favorite event, because it is so beautifully structured, and requires significant thought and preparation and analysis.

In my day job, I'm a lawyer, but not a courtroom litigator. I'm not impressed by snarky CX strategies or ad hominem attacks during rebuttals. Your goal during CX & rebuttals is either to clarify information provided or to poke holes in your opponent's arguments, not to show off how clever you think you are. If you are in fact very clever, it will be evident to me based on your questions and arguments during the round.

Approach

I am a traditional flow judge. This should be a value debate. I want there to be a good clash, and I want each debater to have sufficient contentions to support his or her chosen VP/VC (so a kritik will probably turn me off). The evidence should be legitimate, and it should link to the contentions and then up to the VP/VC/resolution without me having to twist my brain sideways to figure out the links. Don't spoon feed me, but DO make sure it's addressed in your framework, because I won't assume a link exists if you don't mention it during the round.

The number of contentions is less important to me than the strength and validity of each one. It's possible to argue a winning case with only two contentions instead of nine, as long as they're well-researched and well-presented with great links to your value structure.

Also - even though I'm flowing your arguments, it's not an all-or-nothing round based on the flow. I'm definitely NOT persuaded by a debater who says "well, my opponent dropped my 4th contention so that argument carries through the debate and therefore I win the entire round" - because maybe your 4th contention was so worthless your opponent didn't see any need to waste time refuting it (for example). My point is, you won't lose just because you fail to rebut every single point your opponent makes; and you won't win just because your opponent fails to rebut every single point you raise. I'm flowing your cases, but my decision for each round is not limited ONLY to the specifics of the flow.

You will impress me much more with quick-thinking analysis of and response to your opponent's arguments than with a well-written constructive case (although the latter should be a given at this level of competition). I am not, on the other hand, going to be at all impressed by esoteric theoretic non-topical pollutificationism (although it can be entertaining, it won't win you the round).

I am able to understand extremely fast speech as long as you articulate your words clearly and remember to breathe. That said, IF YOU SPREAD - I WILL PROBABLY DROP YOU.

Coach for 20 years- judged all events. Important- link of claims back to value structure, moderate speaking pace is very much appreciated. I flow rounds and use the flow to guide my decision but do not drop debaters just for not extending all arguments cleanly. I like to hear logical fallacies called out as much as I like to hear logic employed in a round.

I am generally a flow judge and can follow fast paced debate.

Framework should be established and followed throughout the round. Tell me why your framework is superior and back up your claim with evidence in contentions. If there is no framework debate, the round will rely on weighing evidence in contentions.

Contentions should be clearly stated with supporting evidence and analysis. Your evidence should be fully explained and analyzed as to its impact on the debate. I prefer evidence be referred to by subject/topic throughout the round rather than simply the author's name. Know your evidence well enough defend it in cross-examination.

Your case should be organized, focused and come to a reasonable conclusion that convinces me to vote in your favor. Failure to communicate the importance of evidence, weighing values and impacts, or extending key arguments may result in a loss.

I am a parent judge who has been judging since 2019. I have some experience judging both speech and LD fields.

Please do not spread, and please provide evidence and signposting during the round. Spreading is the quickest way for you to lose the round- if I can’t follow your arguments, I will likely pick your opponent. Speak clearly, and if running more complex arguments explain your links and impacts well. Use carded evidence.

Above all, please be nice to everyone in the round. Being rude or obnoxious will earn you very low speaks.

Enjoy the round!

I am a practicing attorney in NC. I am not a fan of spreading so please speak slower and clearly. I will give you a cue if I believe you are going too fast.

You may provide my information on the email chain thaddausb@gmail.com

I am a graduate of Davis & Elkins College with a Major in Political Science with minors in History & Communications. While at Davis & Elkins I competed in Parliamentary, Lincoln-Douglas, and International Public Debate. I am currently a Political Organizer for West Virginia Working Families Party doing advocacy at the local, state, and national level and also a member of the Herbert Henderson Office of Minority Affairs Advisory Board for West Virginia, as well a host of my broadcast “Black Enrichment”. Check out my resources https://instabio.cc/3010819aW3fSi?fbclid=IwAR2QXNwHjtOwHJyV8NaRtHhg43MtGef-IrfG26M3W5EooEBH0XwDKU4GxOw

I was awarded Pi Kappa Delta Rank Superior March 2019, National Top Speaker in IPDA March 2020, and am most experienced in Anti-Racism Strategy/Critical Race Theory.

How I Judge YOU

- I will strike your ballot down the second you warrant slavery or white supremacy “good”, it doesn’t work in life and it sure wont work in debate as long as I Judge

- I will listen to any argument *barring* the ones I stated above… tell me how to vote, if you let me think, I will fail you every time. I like clear framework, though if yours is unique take your time and develop how I should view the round and what to expect from your case. If you and opponents have little clash over framework, it will show when I make a final decision.

- Attack evidence, not debaters.

- Speed is fine, I will raise my hand and yell “clear” if your attempt to spread is unclear or too fast.

- I don’t flow CX, attack their questions /answers in your next constructive speech if you’d like it flowed

- Debate is a skill like karate, know when to use it and when not to go too far… HAVE FUN and laugh a little before/between rounds

- the better you paint pictures and use rhythm in your case, the more likely I am to give you higher speaks.

Hello all! As the standards of debate change to reflect an increasingly technologically-dependent world, please remember as future leaders and philanthropists that the students who may benefit from scholastic debate the most may not have access to these now-standardized platforms and tools. Be kind to one another, and make sure that you remember that scholastic debate is, first and foremost, meant to foster greater mindfulness, critical thinking, and the skills one needs to lead and participate in productive and compassionate discourse. Never sacrifice your empathy for a trophy!

Now that that's out of the way, you should know that I am a NC LD Debate veteran, having qualified for nats and all that jazz. In college, I've participated in a much more soft and nice form of debate via the NCICU Ethics Bowl (which I encourage you all to participate in if available to you). I have a BA in Philosophy/Theology and an MA in Religious Studies from Gardner-Webb University. I am also currently employed at Gardner-Webb University as an adjunct professor of introductory biblical studies and inquiry specialist in Digital Learning Admissions.

I have no definite preferences in terms of form of argumentation. My one request is that you take my hand and gently lead me to flowing your side. The point of LD is to provide a concise, thorough, and convincing argument for whatever side you are obligated to defend. All the counterplan advocacy theory blah blah blah hoopla matters far less to me than your ability to convince me that you have one. With that said, the value debate is, in my opinion, a vital part of LD debate. You are far more likely to win if you pay close attention to the value debate. Without it, LD would not exist.

In terms of things that will definitely get you on my bad side, I cannot stand when debaters are rude to one another. Be nice, be polite, stand up during your speeches, don't hold your laptop in front of your face, and for the love of all that is holy please do not stare at your opponent during CX or make faces at them. It is not convincing. It is not funny. It will get you low speaker points and a stern lashing on your ballot.

Know that when you receive your ballot from me, 99% of the critique on that ballot will have nothing to do with my decision. Rather, I will attempt to impart my wisdom to you to the best of my ability. My comment regarding your misuse of Immanual Kant has nothing to do with your win or loss. I will tell you explicitly why you won/lost.

Finally, ask me if I'm ready before speeches, especially CX, and know that my time is the final time. I will time you and you will not trick me into believing that you had 30 seconds left. Let me know if you need time signals.

Also don't spread. If I can't understand what you say, I can't flow you. That doesn't work on me.

If I judge you in PF, I'll try my best.(New addition as of Fall 2023 > If I judge you in PF, please know that you are receiving the blessing of me wanting to be there and have fun. If I have to listen to the same argument in LD as PF, I'd at least like to witness crossfire. I will at least consider the most ridiculous argument you have to offer.)

New addition as of Spring 2022 > Please do not send me your case. I will look at it and judge you for how it is cut and formatted. Thank you.

Current School Affiliation

Chair, Depart of English, Elkins High School

Education Entrepreneurship Graduate Student, University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education

Speech & Debate Program Coordinator, Randolph County Schools

Elkins High School (Elkins, WV)

2016-present

Elkins Middle School (Elkins, WV)

2019-present

Experience as a Competitor

I did not participate in speech and debate activities until I was in college. The program at Davis & Elkins College was primarily focused on public debates and less so on competitive speech and debate. My time at D&E lead me to see the value of debate to shape and improve public discourse. Additional details about my experience are below.

Davis & Elkins College (2013-2016)

Public Debate (debates on campus and in the community, Madison Cup @ James Madison University, iDebate Rwanda)

College Forensics Association (Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Parliamentary Debate, Poetry Interpretation, Prose Interpretation, Communication Analysis, Informative Speaking, After Dinner Speaking, Extemporaneous Speaking, Impromptu Speaking)

Lincoln-Douglas Philosophy

Overview I'm a traditional coach in a traditional circuit that has a general knowledge of progressive LD. However, I am willing to accept CPs, DAs, and Ks, but please be mindful of your opponents/judges ability to adapt. However, I am not likely to vote on theory arguments unless the violation is very abusive.

Speed I'm cool with speed, but be aware of how technology impacts how you are heard.

TL;DR I vote on impact. I want to hear why your argument matters. I will give preference to the debater that does the best job of showing the impact of negating or affirming the resolution.

General Debate Philosophy

1. I judge on impact. Tell me why your argument matters.

2. Create strong links between your claims and your evidence.

Please feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm before the round starts. For email chains: anguse@live.unc.edu. I did LD for four years with North Meck HS and NCSSM. Currently double majoring in Philosophy and Math at UNC.

General

- Speed is fine up to the point where you have to resort to breathing techniques. This does not mean go the same speed you would and cause yourself to pass out.

- Especially in circuit debate – post rounding is a-ok by me. I know I don’t have as much experience with circuit LD, and so the more feedback I get and engagement on my judging, the better I think I am going to be in the future for it.

- I know this makes me sound super lay, but like, PLZ do not read me whatever boring stock util. case you have prepped for lay judges, I hear about enough of this on the local circuit – I want to see something exciting.

-Your job is to write my ballot for me.

Authors I am very comfortable with: DnG, Heidegger, Baudrillard, Foucault, Kant, Adorno.

Intervention

I take as minimal an approach to judge intervention as possible. However, there are certain standards for what I just will not accept:

-New in the 2; I won’t drop you but I don’t flow new arguments in the 2. Not flowing it means it didn’t happen.

-Blatantly false claims: racism good, climate change not real, etc.

Plans and CPs: I’m not the biggest fan of these sorts of debates but I’ll certainly put up with it. Just make sure you execute well.

Policy vs Policy: Compare evidence quality (authors, methodology, sample size, etc.). I could not possible care less about the number of cards you have compared to your opponent.

Topicality: CPs must be competitive. There are a few ways I have seen this violated:

- CP: do the AFF except some absurdly minimal aspect;

- CP not mutually exclusive with the AC

- Resolution doesn’t spec. an actor, but the CP only changes the actor. This is especially relevant to ACs which don’t provide a plan. This is just a more specific case of the first example and – I think – a more egregious violation.

Additionally, please give cards for T; I won’t drop you if you don’t, but your speaks will probably suffer. The more absurdly technical the T debate, the better. Conditional CPs are immensely cringe. I’m also fine with Nebel T, watching people cry about how they might not be able to read an absurdly specific plan is hilarious.

K Debate

I’m most comfortable with Cap Ks, but if you read me cards from Tankies, Maoists, or the like… RIP your speaks. An important note in K debate is please do not try to obfuscate your way to victory.

- Signpost and go line-by-line.

- The more explicit the link the better.

- What does the K do or accomplish concretely? (K-Affs especially)

- Unless it makes sense in lieu of your FW, I’ll prolyl dock your speaks for reading me HuffPo, etc.

- Give a framework for the K!

- If you struggle with providing examples when asked in CX, it probably tells me you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I’ll give you 30 speaks if you read some Neg-Dialectics K about how you should always negate because affirming always traps concepts in a fashion which runs opposite to the dialectical Idea of truth. It would be really funny and would make my day.

FW Debate

I’m probably most comfortable with this. I did a lot of Kant FWs in my time, so I’ll be very comfortable with those. Consequently, I am fine with the idea of not having impact calculus – but only in rounds where you have demonstrated that consequences need not be considered; the default in debate seems to be some sort of util.

I am not a fan of testing the plausibility of a theory based on how a majority of people feel about it (something about Ideology and so on and so forth *sniff*).

Meta-ethics are dope and cool.

I will not penalize you on neg. for just going insane on reading turns and conceding FW, unless you do something insanely stupid like concede a Kant FW and then read impact turns (which I have seen people do). Like???

LOCAL TOURNAMENTS: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WARRANT YOUR FW IN A SUBSTANTIVE MANNER. If you don’t, do not expect to get above a 28.

Theory Debates

Go ahead, but I don’t have a lot of experience here so don’t be surprised if it goes bad for you (I mean it will still be my fault, but just know it’s likely to happen). If you do read theory: PLEASE stay away from jargon! I am putting in the work to better understand the evaluation of theory debates, but I’m not quite there.

Spikes: fine. A prirois: cringe. NIBs: cringe. Burdens: fine. Triggers: cringe. I’m not chill with RVIs just yet until I feel I have a better handle on them. Sorry .

What’s important to me:

Use your voice well. On a written text, I see periods, commas, colons, capital letters, paragraph breaks, headings, underlined material, and so on. In a debate, what replaces all this is your voice. For example, a written text with no punctuation and no spacing is largely unintelligible; an oral argument with no pauses between clauses, sentences, or paragraphs is equally meaningless—regardless of all the points that you think you are making or all of your opponent’s points that you think you are refuting.

Use good transitional expressions. You may know where you are going, but your listener does not. Say where you plan to go, and then on your journey regularly tell your listeners when you are going to turn right or left. The alternative, which is to present a torrent of impressive sounding facts and figures that are hard to follow, tilts this judge against you.

Avoid bossiness. I regularly spend time in courtrooms, and I notice that attorneys who instruct judges and juries about what to do end up hurting their own cases. Also, argue the merits of your position, and be careful with theory debating. Sometimes I consider it smoke and mirrors, and it may work against you—unless, of course, you can use your voice well, use good transitional expressions, and convince me of the reasonableness of your position. A jury wants reasonableness. So do I.

.

I am a parent judge and this is my 3rd year judging PF and LD.

Most rounds that I have judged in the past are very close calls, never an easy / clear-cut decision. So, I take a lot of notes during the rounds, and take time reflecting on both sides before making a final decision. And so a not-too-crazy speed of delivery works best for me. If you go super-fast, you might lose me.

Also, a good set of definitions at the beginning of the debate has been helpful for me in following along on some of the not-too-familiar topics.

I am also not a big fan of teams who use sarcasm or overly aggressive speech to put down their opponents. I value a healthy and respectful debate. So the team who is able to defend their values while attacking their opponent’s case in an effective, yet respectful manner usually wins my vote!

Happy Debating!!

Hi,

I am a parent judge and would request that you consider following to help me judge this in most effective manner.

Speaking:

1. SPEAK SLOWLY

2. Don't be rude or offensive in the round

3. Speak with clarity and elucidation

4. ALWAYS signpost and roadmap: it makes it much clearer for me as a judge if I know what you're talking about

Argumentation:

1. I am NOT familiar with counterplans, theory, or kritiks so please don't run them or I won't be able to judge you appropriately.

2. Summary and FF consistency is important when evaluating arguments

3. Have impacts and WEIGH. Too many times have I seen debaters just say we win because of X argument while never explaining why that argument is the most important to evaluate in the round.

4. Please don't run crazy and difficult to understand arguments. If your opponents can't understand the argument, I probably can't too. If you do have a less common argument, please warrant it and provide ample evidence, and I might be able to understand it.

Evidence:

1. I appreciate citations (Author's last name, month and year, and source if you can).

2. Please don't lie about your evidence; if you are, I most certainly won't vote for that argument.

3. I will call for evidence if it becomes an important point of dispute in the debate.

4. I am a strong believer in quality > quantity. Meaning, don't tell me you win because you have more evidence, tell me you win because your evidence is more reliable

5. I usually flow arguments, not evidence, so telling me to refer back to some random person isn't sufficient.

Debating is supposed to be civil, polite and respectful. If you are presenting in a disdainful, patronizing or dismissive manner, I will not hear what you are saying, only how you are saying it, and I will hold that against you.

I understand that there are many points to be made and rebutted in a short period of time, but remember that you are talking to an audience, and if you are talking too rapidly or moving around without sufficient transitions, the listener cannot follow your points. And I cannot give credit for points that I cannot hear or comprehend. So slow it down, talk clearly and make your points good.

This is supposed to be fun, so don’t forget to enjoy it. And learn from your opponent every round.

I am the Speech and Debate Coach at Carolina Day School in Asheville, NC.

Our program at Carolina Day focuses on Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and some speech events. In competition, I primarily judge Lincoln-Douglas.

I will always be flowing debates and will be familiar with the topics. I hear a lot of debates and can handle speed, but speed cannot come at the expense of clarity. If I can’t understand what you are saying and get it down on the flow, I won’t be able to weigh it later in the round.

I value frameworks in PF. If you don’t have a framework in the constructive, I will assume we are employing a cost-benefit analysis.

I judge primarily on a traditional local circuit. I'm open to progressive argumentation, but it will need to be clearly explained and clearly connected to the topic.

Jeevan Machimada - Judging Paradigm for LD debate

I have been judging various forms of speech and debate for high school students for the past 3 years

In addition to the required traits of a judge – to be unbiased, fair, and not be influenced by my opinion on the subject being debated, I have the following judging philosophy and paradigms:

· I want the debater to be confident an articulate

· I value education, argumentation and persuasion

· Argument points must be relevant and not very repetitive

· I value supporting evidence

· I prefer polite communication, but would encourage a semi-aggressive rebuttal

Regards

Jeevan

I am more familiar with LD Debate. I debated back in high school so I have an understanding of most terms.

General Debate:

I don't usually judge based on the formality or how nice you are to me. However, there is a fine line between joking around and blatant disrespect so just be sure not to disrespect anyone in the room. Mannerisms are important, the way you present yourself to me or your opponent, but I won't usually judge on that unless you give me a reason to. All I ask is to be respectful during the whole round. I can deal with minor aggression during a round, but don't take it too far because I will draw the line when I feel there is clear abuse. I would prefer if you use all of your time during your speeches but I won't take away points if you simply had a couple of seconds left on the clock. I trust all of you to time yourselves, however, if you need me to time you or give signals just let me know and we'll work something out. I will time you just to hold you accountable and make sure you're using most of your time. Since we are under unusual circumstances with everything being online, if you're cut out I'll give you time to relay what was missed if you and your opponent agree to that. If you go over time, I'll let you finish your last sentence before cutting you off.

Spreading:

I'm okay with speed as long as you're clear and you're not gasping for air. If you're going too fast I'll let you know, but try to keep it at an understandable pace because if I can't understand what you're saying, I'm not going to be able to properly judge.

Value Structure (LD- Only):

This plays a huge part in my decision, so make sure you bring it up throughout the round and how it relates to your case. Most importantly, I like to see a clash between value structures.

Framework (PF-Only):

I won't dock points off if you don't have one, however, if your opponent does bring up a framework, I will take it into consideration when I make my decision.

Cards/Evidence:

I trust that your opponent will keep tabs on your evidence, I also trust that you have done the research to make sure your evidence is credible. However, it comes to my attention that there has been a lack of credibility, it will obviously reflect on your ballot. I'm not really a stickler for challenging evidence, but again that's entirely up to you or your opponent.

Please don't refer to your cards by the author's name. I will NOT keep track of it that way, so when you make multiple references to a card by the author's name, I'm not going to have any idea what specific evidence you're talking about.

Point system/ Ballots:

I will always write detailed ballots when I am given the chance. I will probably talk a lot more about the things you can work on rather than the things you did well on. It's not meant to discourage anyone in any way, however, if you do feel like I said something that didn't sit well with you, don't be afraid to let me know so I can learn from it. Everything I write in your ballots are merely suggestions and what I point out is simply so you can do better next time.

I normally won't give anything lower than a 26 unless you were blatantly rude during the whole entire round or offensive. I will not tolerate any blatant disrespect so please refrain from any derogatory terms. If I hear something that's clearly offensive to another person's identity or if you're just incredibly rude to everyone, it will reflect on your ballot.

Hello,

I am a volunteer judge for my son's school in speech and debate events. Like most mercenaries, I go when and where I am asked. I am a trial by fire judge for better or worse. I have little to no formal training in speech or debate. Send me a short PDF or video clip and voila, I'm the expert. Well maybe not the expert, but I judge objectively. Hopefully my comments and clear and helpful.

Speech Events: Novice Reading, Story Telling, Dramatic/Humorous/Duo Interpretation, Declamation, Extemporaneous/Informative/Impromptu Speaking

Compulsories - adhere to any event compulsories. Cite titles and authors of reference pieces. Read from script if required, even if you know it by heart. Follow, but don't be afraid to stretch (grace period), time limits.

Vocal - Speak in articulate ??? at a pace that is easy to follow. Vary pace in an appropriate manor, but do not loose control of enunciation.

Physical - Comfortably use as much of the room as possible if movement is allowed. Keep one foot planted if movement is restricted. Always use facial animations and craft grand gestures to emphasize important moments of your performance.

Debate

Lincoln Douglas

Public Forum

Be kind. Have fun. Don’t be afraid of me — I was once you!

⸻

TL;DR: I care deeply about this activity and the people in it. I value kindness, clarity, and educational growth. I’m tab-leaning but happy to be directed—just tell me what you need. Be nice to each other, have fun, and ask me questions if you’re unsure!

⸻

Speaker Points Philosophy: Speaks are heavily influenced by the level of kindness and congeniality shown in round. Be respectful to your opponents, your partner, and me. I’m judging because I love debate as much as you do, and I want to help you improve if I can!

⸻

Current Affiliation:

• East Chapel Hill High School
• Yale School of Management — Associate Director for Digital Communications (outside of debate)

⸻

Previous Affiliations:

• The Bronx High School of Science (2011–2015) — Coach for Public Forum and Congressional Debate (started as an extemp coach).
• Columbia University — Competed in policy debate for one year
• River Valley High School (Mohave Valley, AZ) — I competed in policy debate and judged/coached PF in the years after graduating. I also competed in several speech events (e.g., extemp).

⸻

Paradigm Overview:

Tell me what to do—i.e., tabula rasa to the extent that anyone can be. I will try to evaluate the round based on the framework you give me. Explain to me what my ballot should look like and why - you are writing my RFD. Ask me questions before round if you’re not sure what I’ll be fine with — I will answer!

Run what you want: hypotesting, retro theory, dense phil, nothing at all. I’ve seen a lot and I’ll keep up. I’m less receptive to lightly-developed theory shells than I used to be. If you’re banking on a low theory threshold, make that expectation explicit early in the round.

Ultimately, I believe in “Debater > Debate.” This is an educational activity, and your well-being comes first. Speak up if anything makes you uncomfortable—tell me, your coach, or a trusted adult right away. I believe in the platinum rule: treat others how they want to be treated.

Let’s make the round a safe, respectful space. You’ve got this!

⸻

Event-Specific Notes:

Since I get this question a lot...

"On Speed / Spreading":

I’m comfortable with speeds above 300 WPM — I can keep up. That said, clarity and strategic control is key, and unless you’re confident in your enunciation and signposting, I’d recommend maxing out around 220 WPM. If I can’t flow it, I won’t evaluate it. Be strategic with your speed—go faster where it’s warranted, slow down when it matters.

Lincoln-Douglas (LD):

• I enjoy well-developed value/criterion debates and dense philosophical argumentation when it’s explained clearly and accessibly.
• I’m comfortable with progressive arguments (theory, K, tricks, etc.), but I want you to warrant your args, collapse clearly, and tell me how to evaluate the round.
• If you’re "spreading", signpost and slow down on tags, especially if you’re new or in front of a mixed-experience judge pool.
• I enjoy well-developed value/criterion debates and dense philosophical argumentation when it’s explained clearly and accessibly.
• Weighing and framing matter. I’m less inclined to evaluate theory that is poorly contextualized or feels frivolous, especially if it becomes abusive in practice.
• Please extend your advocacy clearly in the 2NR/2AR and do the comparative work.

Public Forum (PF):

• I’m a "flow judge" who believes PF should be rigorous but accessible. Yes, I mainly competed in Policy, but remember I've mainly coached Public Forum and have likely judged more LD rounds at this point. You don’t have to talk fast—just be clear, strategic, and responsive.
• It is your job to represent the evidence in round. I will only call for cards if you give me reason.
• Frontline efficiently in rebuttal and weigh early—I reward teams who collapse smartly and don’t leave me to do the work in Final Focus.
• Framework debates (like util vs deont or strength of link vs probability) are welcome and can help resolve messy rounds.
• Turn comparison, impact calculus, and clear summary strategy will win my ballot more often than card dumps or overviews with no clash.

I've been judging LD debate since the fall of 2000. I prefer more conversation delivery as opposed to spread. I still put a lot of weight into framework arguments vs my card is better than your card arguments. Speaking of that it is possible to persuade without a card if using a common sense argument it then falls upon the opponent to use common sense to rebut the argument rather than just: "My opponent doesn't have a card for that." This does not apply to specific amounts. For example, if you were to claim that Mossism has 50,000 adherents, I'd need a card. Common sense arguments follow lines of basic logic. Also, please please please please Signpost as you go down the flow.

I am a parent judge. I have some experience judging speech but this is my first time with LD.

I am looking for clear and concise arguments. If you spread and I can't follow you, I will not have any evidence to support a decision in your favor. Signposting is highly encouraged. Extend your arguments throughout the round and weigh them in your speeches.

Please be respectful of everyone during the round.

I'm looking forward to a great day.

Jonathan Peele
Director of Speech & Debate
Calvin Coolidge Presidential Foundation
Updated: July 25, 2024

Public Forum Debate Paradigm
Most important: Explicitly weigh and you can go kinda fast.If you don't do it, I'll try to vote on the arguments allocated the most time in the round, but I reserve the right to decide what's most important all on my own in the absence of arguments about which ones truly are. I'm a moderate on speed; you don't have to be conversational, but my flowing definitely gets weak at top speed. If you won't think me an idiot for admitting what is true of every judge, my processing of a few, well developed arguments will be better than many underdeveloped ones.

Miscellaneous thoughts on the state of the art:
- Public Forum's origin story was all about correcting the excesses of LD and CX to provide a format of debate that was accessible to citizen judges and students who might not be initiated in the national circuit club. For that reason, I will drop you with haste if you run theory in front of me, assuming your opponent lodges even the slightest response to it.
- It doesn't absolutely have to have been in summary for it to be in final focus, but I definitely think that's best practice.
- Don't card dump in rebuttal. Don't read a new contention disguised as a response. If your opponents do this call them out for it and I'll drop the argument.
- I won't charge either team prep when cards are called for, but your prep time does begin once you're handed the evidence. Hand your opponent your device with the exact content they asked for displayed.
- Paraphrasing isn't the devil, but be ethical. It's essential you have the underlying text readily available (per the rules, ya know).
- I think case disclosure is ok. I distrust that this is really about enhancing education and suspect it's more often about enabling a school's war room to prep everyone out. Please don't read me disclosure theory in PF.
- I'd rather not shake your hand. It's just too much.

Public Forum lives in limbo between its Policy and Lincoln-Douglas counterparts. Frankly, one of the great things about being involved in the event right now is the lack of choking orthodoxy (which paradoxically really only tries to be as unorthodox as possible) to which our cousins in CX and LD have subjected themselves. (What a fun sentence!) Directly charged with neither the task of advocating a plan to execute a policy nor with advocating a particular value structure, as an emerging community we are only just now figuring out how to articulate what exactly debaters are supposed to be doing in Public Forum rounds. I certainly do not have the definitive answer to that question, but my best description of the event is that it is meant to be a policy-rationale debate. Public Forum debate at its best calls for a momentary suspension of the considerations of exactly how (i.e., a plan) to execute a policy and instead debating the rationale for changing/not changing the status quo. Allow me to qualify: I am not suggesting that Public Forum should systematically exclude all consideration of how policy would be executed (occasional assumptions about how the policy would unfold in the context of today’s America have a place in-round), but rather I am attempting to define appropriate parameters for Public Forum. If you've made it this far, you might also find some thoughts in my LD paradigm useful.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm
I have remarkably low-self esteem as a Lincoln-Douglas Debate critic. I think I’m a good coach and possess somewhat above-average intelligence, but the gobbledygook that passes for “debate” in most circuit LD rounds I’ve seen is either A) so complicated and over my head that I should rethink those assumptions about myself or B) such a poor excuse for an intellectually honest discussion of the resolution that I’m glad to be an outsider in your realm. If I’m in the pool at a meaningful LD tournament it means that I’m doing a coaching friend a favor, failed to successfully hire out my commitment, or a terrible mistake of some kind has been made. I will almost certainly look miserable at the back of the room. Because I am.

As terribly negative as that sounds, I do on occasion find Lincoln-Douglas debates to be fulfilling and invigorating. What is it that can make me happy? Well, I suppose that’s what you’d like for me to attempt to articulate here. So here I go.

Speed – This is usually the only thing you ask about before you start debating. I do not believe that rate of delivery must be conversational and I will try to keep up with you. My pen can reasonably keep up, but since I don’t coach LD at a circuit-level full-time, and since I haven’t read the theory/critical literature that you want to throw at me at 500 words per minute, I’m probably not going to be very successful in evaluating it at the end of the round if you do go circuit-fast. You’ll see the frustration on my face if you ever look up. I can only vote on what I was able to process.

Framework – I do need you to articulate some weighing mechanism or decision-making calculus before you hit me with your case. I don’t care what you call it or what form it takes, but it does need to be clear, and the less variables you put into it the more comprehensible my decision will be at the end of the round. I tend to prefer specificity in criteria. If you never address this then what choice do I have but to arbitrarily decide? By that I mean don’t just put some nebulous, overly broad value at the top of your case and then never reference it. That’s just some vestigial relic from the way things were in LD 30 years ago. Then you’ll need to win why it’s preferable to use your weighing mechanism. Then just evaluate the arguments in the round (that’s “link back” I think in your vernacular) by that standard. If you do these things well and in a manner I can understand, you’re going to win.

Theory – I have opinions about what debate ought to be. You have opinions about what debate ought to be. Everyone has opinions about what debate ought to be. They differ wildly. I suppose then that I’m obligated to evaluating your arguments about how this activity should take place and to being open-minded about what best practices really are. But like everyone else, I have my personal biases and preferences and it’s going to be difficult to dislodge me from them. I prefer straightforward debate with comparison of the impacts in a world for which the resolution is or is not true. Now, you’re going to read that and think that I’m some sort of horrible “Truth seeker” judge. No. I just want to hear a debate of the resolution itself, not an advocacy primarily about what the educational value of debate is, some tenuous application of fringe academic theories, or some significant variation on the resolution that you wish to debate instead. That means I’m highly likely to accept some very simple topicality analysis as an answer when your opponent does any of these things. I likes the way Joe Vaughan had put it many years ago in an old version of his paradigm (I liked it so much I saved it), “I am open to a variety of different types of argumentation (kritiks, counterplans, et cetera), but only if such positions are linked specifically to a reasonable interpretation of the topic and are not an attempt to fundamentally change the focus of the issues intended by the framing of the resolution. Arguments that are only tangential to the conflict embedded in the resolution and shift the focus of the round to the validity of alternative philosophies are difficult for me to accept if challenged sufficiently.”

Disclaimer – While I deeply value winning as a worthwhile goal of debate, I am still also responsible for being a (albeit flawed) role model and an educator. If you are so profoundly rude or callous towards your opponent, or anyone in the community at any time for that matter, I reserve the right to drop you for that. I don’t have to accept all possible behaviors just because this is a game where we play with ideas.

Policy Debate Paradigm
I know the names of all the stock issues. I am a native speaker of English. I promise to try my best to be attentive and fair. Those are the only possible qualifications I have to be sitting in the back of your room (at least at any tournament important enough for you to be checking here for a paradigm). Go complain to the tab room immediately. I already tried and they didn't listen to me.

Past Program Affiliations
Director of Speech & Debate, Calvin Coolidge Presidential Foundation, Plymouth Notch, VT, 2024-present
Director of Speech & Debate, Charlotte Latin School, Charlotte, NC, 2013-2021
Director of Congressional Debate & Individual Events, The Harker School, San Jose, CA, 2009-2013
Director of Speech & Debate, Manchester Essex Regional HS, Manchester-by-the-Sea, MA, 2007-2009
Director of Speech & Debate, East Chapel Hill HS, Chapel Hill, NC, 2002-2007
Assistant Speech & Debate Coach, East Chapel Hill HS, Chapel Hill, NC, 2000-2002
Student (Primary Event: Congressional Debate), South View HS, Hope Mills, NC, 1996-2000

Camp Affiliations
Co-Founder & Co-Director, The Institute for Speech and Debate, Charlotte, NC & Fort Lauderdale, FL 2013-2021
Director, Congressional Debate & Individual Events, University of California National Forensics Institute, Berkeley, CA 2012-2013
Director, Public Forum Debate, Capitol Debate Institute, Baltimore, MD 2011-2012
Instructor, Public Forum Debate, Harvard Debate Institute, Boston MA 2010
Instructor, Public Forum Debate, National Debate Forum, Boston, MA, 2008-2009
Instructor, Public Forum Debate, National Debate Forum, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2009
Director, Public Forum Debate, University of Kentucky National Debate Institute, Lexington, KY, 2008
Director, Public Forum Debate, Florida Forensic Institute, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2007
Instructor, Congressional Debate, Florida Forensic Institute, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2006
Director, Congressional Debate, Research Triangle Forensics Institute, Cary, NC, 2003-2005

I have judged speech and debate events for the past 16 years. My son was in Congress.

General thoughts

Regardless of the event, I expect professionalism and preparation from all competitors. Showing up unprepared or engaging in unprofessional behavior wastes your time, my time, as well as that of the other competitors and your coaches.

Public Forum Debate & LD

Although I’ve judged PFD more than LD, I feel comfortable with both events. I appreciate assertiveness but actively dislike aggression. Clarity is extremely important. Don’t be cocky: instead, try to convey how deeply you’ve researched the topic. I always leave my personal opinions on the topic aside in order to be fair to all debaters.

Interp/speech

I started off my judging career judging interp, even though lately I’ve been judging debate more. Regardless of the piece, you have to give your best when performing. Delivery must always be clear and interesting. Tech should be smooth and reflect the norms of the event itself (tech in DI is very different than tech in HI).

Hello,

I am a beginner parent judge, but benefit from decades of professional legal argumentation. You can speak at whatever speed you like, provided that it is smooth and comprehensible. If you speak too fast and I do not understand an argument, I will not vote on it.

I value arguments that are: (1) clear, coherent and crisp and (2) well-weighted. I have little tolerance for discourtesy, no matter how compelling your argument.

The best time to invest in a good internet connection was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

I'm a truth over tech parent judge with about 3 years experience, and fairly active in the season. I'm a lay judge that flows, but not to any internationally recognized standard, and definitely not in more than one color. My writing is scruffy, sometimes I can't read my own notes. If you see me drawing big circles or boxes, it's because someone just made some ridiculous claim, and it's rude to laugh - so I scribble a shape instead.

Triangle - only a Muppet would say that.

Rectangle - only a Muppet would believe that.

Oval - only a Muppet would have found this in the deepest parts of the internet and think it was worth repeating with a straight face.

I'm a scientist, a software engineer, and yes, that thing behind me is a tower made from IKEA lack tables holding two 3D printers.

I am a patent judge with several rounds of experience judging debate events. I am the typical “lay judge”. However, I am more than capable of evaluating strength of argumentation and evidence when deciding who has won the round. Please make sure your arguments and evidence are clear.

I am a parent judge and have been judging (mostly LD) for 4 years. Please do not spread, as I will not be able to flow or catch everything you say (and your opponent may not be able to either, particularly if they have had less experience with it).

I would like to be on the email chain if there is one carleigh.l.west@gmail.com

About Me:

I have my masters in communication studies and bachelor’s in political science from West Virginia University. While at WVU, I competed for their policy team for about two years, and I had a year of competing in parliamentary and IPDA debate while at Shepherd University, where I ranked nationally. I am currently a research and evaluation coordinator for the Notah Begay III Foundation, a nonprofit with a focus on health and well-being for Native American Youth.

NB3 Foundation Hydrate your Hustle:

"Take the Pledge

As part of the campaign, we invite youth and families to take the Hydrate Your Hustle Pledge. By committing to choose water as their primary drink, participants can contribute to a healthier community. Native youth are encouraged to share their stories about why they are choosing water, highlighting personal motivations and cultural connections that inspire them. "

General:

I will listen to just about any argument but I enjoy debates with a clear framework to weigh the round. I think debate is an educational activity and creates a lot of great opportunities for learning, so my openness to many arguments really stems from wanting to explore the ideas that debaters want to bring to the table. Most importantly, though, have fun! Get into it!

• I love educational impacts, we are doing an educational activity, so we see grounded impacts when we can impact education. That doesn't mean I won't vote on non-educational impacts, just that I have a fondness for education.
• Please make sure all arguments are complete. Claim, warrant, and impact.
• Have fun with this! You're likely up early on a Saturday to be here! Have fun!
• Stay hydrated y'all. Drink some water, not just coffee or energy drinks.

On AI in rounds:

As NSDA does not prohibit the use of AI in rounds, I will allow it, but I want to HIGHLY discourage it. If you are reading directly from AI, you will likely not earn high speaks from me. I did not sign up to hear an AI debate, I signed up to hear YOU debate.

FW: Overall, I will vote on just about anything if you win it, even if I don't personally like the argument. Tell me what to do. I am basically sitting in the back of the room, waiting to hear how you will direct me. I love a specific ROB or ROJ to help outline what you are asking of me. However, within Framework lies my biggest debate pet peeve: if your frameworks can work together, we don't need to spend a ton of time on the framework debate.(i.e., if you're framing is util and your opponent's is a cost-benefit analysis, and you spend half the debate on a framework that could be spent on the case, I will be a sad judge.) You can play in each other's sandbox. Even better, tell me why you win under their framework.

Speed:I can handle speed. I would encourage slowing down for emphasis on points you really want to hit home. If I cannot understand you, I will say "clear" (unless you tell me otherwise, I'll roll with what's best for you).

AFF/Case: Please be clear about your impacts and your framing. As I had mentioned, I will vote on just about anything, but be clear about where your impacts lie and how I should be viewing the round. Doing this is really important and will make it easier for me to vote for you. Also love a good case turn or impact turn.

Perms: Whether it is for a CP or a K, if you are going for the perm, please explain how it functions. What does doing both look like? Sequencing can be super important!

T: I mean, I’ll vote on it. If you’re going to read T, please just make it clear and uphold your standards. Please be clear about where the violation is and why the limits are necessary. If you're going for fairness, let me know your benefits and impacts to this.

Theory: like T. My threshold for dropping the debater is going to be pretty high.

CP: Pretty much weighing like how I would weigh the plan; tell me your framework, let me know your impacts. Please let me know why the perm(s) don't apply.

K: I love a good K. A kritik done well can lead to great discussions in round and further education. I do think you need to have a good link story to the AFF and a clear alternative. I need to know what I am endorsing. I’ll vote on generic Ks since I think generic Ks help get folks into critical literature. I may know the literature, I may not. Regardless, you should be able to give a good, simple explanation of your K. Please let me know why the perm(s) don't apply to the alt.

DA: DAs are cool with me. Give me a good story of how the DA happens, do your impact calc, and I’ll vote on it.

Overall, if you have questions for me after the round- please feel free to email me.

Sophomore at Duke, I debated ld and pf in high school.

general stuff:

Please no progressive arguments or spreading, I will drop you.

I highly prefer debaters who have clear pace. I don't mind if you go a bit fast, but make sure to emphasize important points and arguments.

I also like to see impact weighing, original analysis, and voter issues. Arguments with insufficient evidence or analysis will not be evaluated at the same level as arguments backed by solid evidence.

Please be respectful to each other in the round.

for ld:

Remember, speak clearly, warrant your arguments, warrant your value structure, signpost as you go along, and GIVE VOTERS at the end of your last speech (2AR or 2NR).

for pf:

have a clear narrative and find the easiest path to the ballot.